We keep 3 keepers. In the next draft everybody has the same budget amount except for this year's winners who will have bonus money. The amount you spent on your keepers this year is irrelevant to next year.

I'm going to implement a new change for next year though. In regards to keepers... On going, you will not be able to keep any player who has played 5 seasons in the NBA. This works well because top veteran talent goes back into the draft pool every year. At the same time, if you draft a guy like John Wall, then you get him for 5 years before you have to put him back into the draft pool. This rule will go into effect after next season.

For the next draft, I will stick to the original rules that were in place at the time of the draft. So going into the next draft, you will keep any of your 3 players that you want. But while we are drafting, keep in mind that you won't be able to keep anyone who has been in the league for 5 years.

We keep 3 keepers. In the next draft everybody has the same budget amount except for this year's winners who will have bonus money. The amount you spent on your keepers this year is irrelevant to next year.

I'm going to implement a new change for next year though. In regards to keepers... On going, you will not be able to keep any player who has played 5 seasons in the NBA. This works well because top veteran talent goes back into the draft pool every year. At the same time, if you draft a guy like John Wall, then you get him for 5 years before you have to put him back into the draft pool. This rule will go into effect after next season.

For the next draft, I will stick to the original rules that were in place at the time of the draft. So going into the next draft, you will keep any of your 3 players that you want. But while we are drafting, keep in mind that you won't be able to keep anyone who has been in the league for 5 years.

Is that ok?

I think it works alright. I'm not sure, but for basketball 5 years may be too long. I think it works in the MLB fantasy keeper league because a lot of players take a while to breakthrough in the majors and usually it takes some time to succeed at a high level. So the people who take chances on the younger players should be rewarded there.

However, big time NBA stars (like Wall) emerge almost immediately in their rookie campaigns or the year after. I think 4 years would be good, but maybe that's just me.

I like the idea overall, though. Rewards people who may overspend on young guys who we don't know if they will pan out, or on hidden gems someone else may find.

We keep 3 keepers. In the next draft everybody has the same budget amount except for this year's winners who will have bonus money. The amount you spent on your keepers this year is irrelevant to next year.

I'm going to implement a new change for next year though. In regards to keepers... On going, you will not be able to keep any player who has played 5 seasons in the NBA. This works well because top veteran talent goes back into the draft pool every year. At the same time, if you draft a guy like John Wall, then you get him for 5 years before you have to put him back into the draft pool. This rule will go into effect after next season.

For the next draft, I will stick to the original rules that were in place at the time of the draft. So going into the next draft, you will keep any of your 3 players that you want. But while we are drafting, keep in mind that you won't be able to keep anyone who has been in the league for 5 years.

Is that ok?

Now wait....I might be misreading that but if you keep a player who cost you $200 last year, you still get just as much headed into the next year to spend as someone who kept players worth less? That doesn't seem right.

In like a normal draft keeper league, if you keep a guy you drafted in the first round, you lose your first rounder the next draft. Shouldn't it be the same way here only you're without the money that you spent?

Otherwise there is an incredible advantage to anyone who spent a lot on one player and decides to keep him vs. someone who built a value team. You know what I mean?

Now wait....I might be misreading that but if you keep a player who cost you $200 last year, you still get just as much headed into the next year to spend as someone who kept players worth less? That doesn't seem right.

In like a normal draft keeper league, if you keep a guy you drafted in the first round, you lose your first rounder the next draft. Shouldn't it be the same way here only you're without the money that you spent?

Otherwise there is an incredible advantage to anyone who spent a lot on one player and decides to keep him vs. someone who built a value team. You know what I mean?

I know that is a factor, but that was permitable. The downside of that was that those owners had to go through the season with crappy depth. The penalty of being charged that amount for more than one season is not a good idea. If Dwight Howard went for $120 on a $200 budget, it's not right for that owner to go into next year's draft with only $80 to spend for the rest of his team. He already paid the price for doing that this season.

That said, the new rules will prevent him from keeping Dwight, but with the new rules in place before the draft, then they can re-strategize accordingly.

Forenci has a point... but I think 3 years would be too short. Maybe 4 would be the happy medium. Still willing to hear others out.

Well, what about only costing half of what they spent if that's possible to do? Just like real life, there needs to be some sort of advantage/disadvantage system to the players you keep around. Like if you found a stud for only $5 who broke out this year, there should be an advantage to keeping him rather than someone who paid a lot of an established star keeping that star.

When the 5 year limit kicks in, it will alleviate that to a degree, and we could probably go without costing you something to keep a guy, but for this season, since that won't be in effect, teams that spent a lot on established stars will have an inherent advantage over teams that spent more frugally and spread out their money.

So I think, just for this season until that 5 year keeper rule comes into effect, it should cost at least a percentage of what you spent on the player previously in order to keep him. Even half would probably be effective in my opinion.

Well, what about only costing half of what they spent if that's possible to do? Just like real life, there needs to be some sort of advantage/disadvantage system to the players you keep around. Like if you found a stud for only $5 who broke out this year, there should be an advantage to keeping him rather than someone who paid a lot of an established star keeping that star.

When the 5 year limit kicks in, it will alleviate that to a degree, and we could probably go without costing you something to keep a guy, but for this season, since that won't be in effect, teams that spent a lot on established stars will have an inherent advantage over teams that spent more frugally and spread out their money.

So I think, just for this season until that 5 year keeper rule comes into effect, it should cost at least a percentage of what you spent on the player previously in order to keep him. Even half would probably be effective in my opinion.

Nah, we're not going to do that. I never specified that that would be the case prior to the draft last year, so it would be hard to force now. Plus, players that have been traded and such make it hard to determine things. The advantage of finding a player such as one off the wire or one you got in the draft for cheap is that you get to keep them if you wish.

I think the price you spent on a player absolutely should carry over. It is just like the NFL league I'm in, if you take a player in a round if you keep him you lose that round again. It encourages smart bidding and efficiency.

I think the price you spent on a player absolutely should carry over. It is just like the NFL league I'm in, if you take a player in a round if you keep him you lose that round again.It encourages smart bidding and efficiency.

That's exactly the reason I assumed it would. I had never been in an auction draft before, but I figured it would carry over all the same.

I think the price you spent on a player absolutely should carry over. It is just like the NFL league I'm in, if you take a player in a round if you keep him you lose that round again. It encourages smart bidding and efficiency.

Yeah, but that's with a snake style draft. Not an auction draft. If you lose the pick from that round you decided to keep the player from, that's totally different from auction style.

I'm all for encouraging smart bidding and efficiency... but what is that? It's different for everyone because everyone may have their own strategy. What's smart to you may not be what someone else thinks is smart.

The smartest thing is to spend the least on the best players, I don't think anyone would argue with that. That's just how life works in general...you want the best stuff for the least amount of money.

You can get awesome production out of a superstar you spent 2/3 of your money on, but it would be even better for you and your team if you spent $5 on an unknown and he grew into Superstar.

And I don't see how it's different from a snake order draft. If you keep a player you spent a 2nd round pick on, you lose your 2nd round pick.

If you want to keep a player you spent $100 on, you should have $100 less to work with in the next auction.

I mean, compare it to real life. If the Heat got to keep LeBron, Wade and Bosh, but got to spend the same amount as everyone else the next year...it wouldn't really be fair to the frugal teams who spent less on more players. You know what I'm trying to say? The Heat are penalized because they are paying 3 guys a majority of their salary and don't have the funds to bring in other players, while another team might be spreading out how much it pays and end up with fewer stars, but a more solid all around team, and the ability to add available stars because of how much more money they have to work with.

It's the same principle here. I don't want to sit here and give away my strategy, but if I keep 3 productive players I spent a total of $30 on in the draft, I should be benefitted in some way that a team keeping 3 players they spent $200 isn't. That team probably gets 3 better overall players, but they will have less to work with to build around them in the following draft.

Again, collect some more opinions but I think most of the league will agree with what I'm trying to say like Shiver.

I'm on board with D-Unit, and completely disagree with BB and Shiver. Mainly because I spent like $205 on Dwight Howard. It really hurt me build the rest of my team and if it carries over I'm going to have a hard time once again. I think overpaying for one player put me in a disadvantage for the whole season, but at the end it would be rewarding. So there is a strategy to it. BB had a great season because he spread his money well, I put all my eggs in one basket and had a bad season but I'm better off in the long run.

It's not just that I'm getting my $205 player vs. BB who didn't have anyone even close, (but we start of with the same budget) it's me making a sacrifice for it.

The smartest thing is to spend the least on the best players, I don't think anyone would argue with that. That's just how life works in general...you want the best stuff for the least amount of money.

You can get awesome production out of a superstar you spent 2/3 of your money on, but it would be even better for you and your team if you spent $5 on an unknown and he grew into Superstar.

And I don't see how it's different from a snake order draft. If you keep a player you spent a 2nd round pick on, you lose your 2nd round pick.

If you want to keep a player you spent $100 on, you should have $100 less to work with in the next auction.

I mean, compare it to real life. If the Heat got to keep LeBron, Wade and Bosh, but got to spend the same amount as everyone else the next year...it wouldn't really be fair to the frugal teams who spent less on more players. You know what I'm trying to say? The Heat are penalized because they are paying 3 guys a majority of their salary and don't have the funds to bring in other players, while another team might be spreading out how much it pays and end up with fewer stars, but a more solid all around team, and the ability to add available stars because of how much more money they have to work with.

It's the same principle here. I don't want to sit here and give away my strategy, but if I keep 3 productive players I spent a total of $30 on in the draft, I should be benefitted in some way that a team keeping 3 players they spent $200 isn't. That team probably gets 3 better overall players, but they will have less to work with to build around them in the following draft.

Again, collect some more opinions but I think most of the league will agree with what I'm trying to say like Shiver.

On the bolded part... Is that forever as long as they keep the player?

As for comparing this to real life, the difference is players sign contracts for a certain amount of years. This is concept seems endless.

I just want to be fair to all. So I will wait for others to chime in. I think this would've had a major effect on trades. People might not have done some of their trades if they knew about the cost of keeping certain players.

ie. If you traded for Player A who cost $120 (Amare Stoutemire) in the draft for Player B who cost $15 (Lamarcus Aldridge) in the draft in a deal that involved other moving parts. Your intent could've been that you were going to keep Player A as your keeper, but without considering the cost of keeping him would be different, then you might not have done the trade. With so many trades done without this in consideration, I think that puts a significant twist on how this season has rolled out.

I wish we cleared this up before the season started. Oh well. More comments people!

I'm on board with D-Unit, and completely disagree with BB and Shiver. Mainly because I spent like $205 on Dwight Howard. It really hurt me build the rest of my team and if it carries over I'm going to have a hard time once again. I think overpaying for one player put me in a disadvantage for the whole season, but at the end it would be rewarding. So there is a strategy to it. BB had a great season because he spread his money well, I put all my eggs in one basket and had a bad season but I'm better off in the long run.

It's not just that I'm getting my $205 player vs. BB who didn't have anyone even close, (but we start of with the same budget) it's me making a sacrifice for it.

Yeah, you paid the sacrifice already. I think it's only fair that you get to keep him for next year. But after that with the new 5 year vet rule in place, things will change. But at least you can restrategize without being penalized.

I'm on board with D-Unit, and completely disagree with BB and Shiver. Mainly because I spent like $205 on Dwight Howard. It really hurt me build the rest of my team and if it carries over I'm going to have a hard time once again. I think overpaying for one player put me in a disadvantage for the whole season, but at the end it would be rewarding. So there is a strategy to it. BB had a great season because he spread his money well, I put all my eggs in one basket and had a bad season but I'm better off in the long run.

It's not just that I'm getting my $205 player vs. BB who didn't have anyone even close, (but we start of with the same budget) it's me making a sacrifice for it.

But then you'll have a MAJOR advantage having one of the league's best players with no penalty.

The reason for paying to keep them is you either have to be willing to sacrifice that much again, or let him go. I'd be willing to bet you'd have a good chance of signing him back even cheaper..if not by a whole lot...

Meanwhile, I'd be at a MAJOR disadvantage because of my style this season. And before you say that I'm only arguing this because of how I built my team, know that I built my team under the assumption that it would cost you to keep players, so I avoided going to high on any one player for that reason.

For example, if you keep Dwight Howard and 2 other players at no cost to you, But then still get to spend the same amount I would in the next auction where I keep 3 significantly lesser players, it would be brutally unfair to me, as we'll have the same amount to spend but you'll have at least 1 significantly better player kept.

Like I said, I built my team under the assumption that, like regular keeper leagues, it would cost you something to keep a player. So I avoided spending big on any 1 player intentionally, and it has benefitted me well this season.

However, if teams are allowed to keep their superstars but still spend just as much as me who will be keeping players of significantly, it puts me at an extreme disadvantage.

Also, any team who got a budding superstar cheap will basically not be rewarded for that. If you for instance spent $20 on a guy who became an elite player this year, you can keep him for that $20 giving you a legitimate advantage. Whereas a person who took less of a gamble and invested big in an already established superstar will have a decision whether to release that guy and free up the money, or keep him and try to build a value team around him.

Under my suggestion, we would see teams giving up a lot of their stars and keeping players who have more value per dollar. Not in all cases, but it would be a decision that has to be made.

Especially for this coming season since anyone can keep any player, the 3-5 year rule wouldn't be in effect.

I hear you BB. You have a point. Both sides have a point. While he does have the advantage next year, you have admit, he's been at a disadvantage this year. That's the trade off. That's likely what he was willing to sacrifice.

That's the problem when rules aren't clearly stated. People end up with different assumptions.

I fear we may ultimately have to start a new with crystal clear rules leaving no room for assumptions.

I hear you BB. You have a point. Both sides have a point. While he does have the advantage next year, you have admit, he's been at a disadvantage this year. That's the trade off. That's likely what he was willing to sacrifice.

That's the problem when rules aren't clearly stated. People end up with different assumptions.

I fear we may ultimately have to start a new with crystal clear rules leaving no room for assumptions.

But that was his decision to make, and he accepted that. If he had Dwight and then spent his remaining money on quality players, he'd be right in the thick of things too. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you can be successful a number of ways. My value driven way could have easily backfired because I lack any elite superstars, but some of the cheaper players I got stepped up big and helped me out a lot.

I mean, however we end up doing it next year, count me in, I'll still do my damndest. Always do.

But that was his decision to make, and he accepted that. If he had Dwight and then spent his remaining money on quality players, he'd be right in the thick of things too. There's more than one way to skin a cat, and you can be successful a number of ways. My value driven way could have easily backfired because I lack any elite superstars, but some of the cheaper players I got stepped up big and helped me out a lot.

I mean, however we end up doing it next year, count me in, I'll still do my damndest. Always do.

Trust me. I'm screwed either way. I traded Derrick Rose $60 in a deal where I got Kevin Martin $80. No way I do that if I shared your assumptions. I also traded Demarcus Cousins an $8 buy for Antwan Jamison $43.

On the other hand, I got Lamarcus Aldridge for $15, so keeping him at that price is beneficial to me with your strategy.

I think the best solution might be to clear the air and start a new, but I'm wanting to hear from the other members of the league.